Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Sale of assets

  • 4 Oct 2024

    RE WSY

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 2713
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMH80/2011

    The Buy‑out Summons was dismissed because the proposed buy‑out was not shown to be demonstrably in the paramount interests of the MIP: material valuation disputes and commercial terms were substantive rather than merely procedural, the supervisory jurisdiction is protective not a forum for resolving inter partes business negotiations, and the Committee retains discretion to seek compliance with the Setting Aside Order or negotiate terms; however the Court authorized the Committee not to seek restitution or recourse against CK in respect of two properties already sold by KH.

  • 26 Aug 2020

    KEEN LLOYD HOLDINGS LTD v. CHURK YAT MING AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 2182
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA641/2014

    The court found the plaintiff's inaction since mid‑January 2017 to be inordinate and inexcusable and that continuing the Mareva injunction would cause undue prejudice to the 1st defendant; accordingly the injunction was discharged in principle but varied to protect the creditor by permitting sale of the Property and shares provided the net proceeds are handled by the defendant's solicitors (not by the defendant), with specified procedural safeguards (service on Bank of China, 14‑day timeframe for sale of shares, reserve price agreement or court determination), retention of up to HKD 11,600 fo…

  • 25 Aug 2016

    LEE CHEUNG LAU v. THOMAS LEE HOK LAU AND OTHERS

    Citation
    LEE CHEUNG LAU v. THOMAS LEE HOK LAU AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW289/2012

    The court concluded the liquidators' proposed procedure fell within the permissible range of commercial decisions and was not so unreasonable as to warrant interference; it therefore authorized the liquidators to proceed with one further listing attempt at a reserve of RMB 40,000,000 and, if no acceptable offer by 5pm on 22 September 2016, to shut down CTTS and sell its assets, with specified costs directions.

  • 28 Jun 2013

    CHAN KA MING v. SZE KUNG YEE AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CHAN KA MING v. SZE KUNG YEE AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA215/2009

    The court found no implied pay-when-paid term in the Cooperation Agreement or Rental Agreements because the criteria for implication were not met; there was no effective assignment of rental debts; Mr Chan did not remove valuable assets and the auction was conducted openly by an independent auctioneer so no prejudice to guarantors was proved; absent expert valuation evidence the defence that guarantors were discharged failed; consequently judgment was entered for Hua Ning for rental arrears and for Mr Chan against Mr Sze and Best Leader for the adjusted loan amount plus interest and costs.

  • 7 Mar 2012

    MACAU FIRST UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DING XIAOHONG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    MACAU FIRST UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DING XIAOHONG AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA992/2010

    The court refused to discharge or replace the receivers because allegations of fabrication, bias and most misconduct were not made out and the receivers were largely acting to preserve company assets in the face of active obstruction; the court refused a stay of execution pending appeal because grounds were not strong and undertakings were insufficient; the court ordered fortification of Ding Yu's undertaking in damages of HK$10,000,000 in two tranches; the court granted many of the receivers' directions (subject to deletion of directions to remove the PRC legal representative pending appeal)…

  • 23 Feb 2009

    RE PEACE MARK (HOLDINGS) LTD

    Citation
    RE PEACE MARK (HOLDINGS) LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW420/2008

    Peace Mark Limited was ordered wound up because the petitioning creditor established the debt and relevant stakeholders supported winding up; Peace Mark (Holdings) Limited's petition was adjourned to allow provisional liquidators to pursue sale negotiations and further reporting, with the court exercising its discretion to protect asset value and confidentiality by sealing reports.

  • 23 Feb 2009

    RE PEACE MARK LTD

    Citation
    RE PEACE MARK LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW419/2008

    PML was wound up because the creditor's petition was supported and liquidation would not prevent ongoing investigations; PMHL's petition was adjourned to permit provisional liquidators to pursue sale opportunities to preserve value of the listed company; the court exercised its discretion to seal provisional liquidators' reports and to allocate costs as ordered.

  • 13 Nov 2008

    RE PEACE MARK PRODUCTION LTD

    Citation
    RE PEACE MARK PRODUCTION LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW533/2008

    The court granted the validation order because the provisional liquidators were not demonstrably conflicted, there was no substantial dispute shown on valuation of PM Production's interest or on the unsecured guaranteed claims given available evidence, urgent risk of asset dissipation justified immediate sale, and adequate protections were provided (escrow of proceeds and 21 days notice) protecting the Fund's rights; costs ordered against the Fund.

  • 16 Feb 2005

    RE SINO TRADE ASIA LTD

    Citation
    RE SINO TRADE ASIA LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW827/2004

    Because no party claimed the chips, there was material casting doubt on the genuineness of the purported Maxon transaction, the chips were valued at HK$400,000 and there was risk of rapid market change, and because there was no benefit in maintaining the lease, the court concluded it was in the best interests of the company to grant the provisional liquidators leave to sell the chips and liberty to terminate the lease and ordered relief in terms of paragraphs 1–3 of the summons.